The Regional Court of Appeal Reaffirmed the Application of the New York Convention and the Prohibition of Révision au Fond in Enforcement Proceedings

The Regional Court of Appeal Reaffirmed the Application of the New York Convention and the Prohibition of Révision au Fond in Enforcement Proceedings

In the process of enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Turkey, the applicable procedural rules and the question of whether the merits of the award may be reviewed (prohibition of révision au fond) are key elements that define the scope and limits of the enforcement proceedings.

In its decision dated 21 April 2025, the 9^th Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court of Appeal (“Regional Court of Appeal”) ruled that, in proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the provisions of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the Convention”) apply, and under this framework, courts are not permitted to assess the merits of the dispute. The Regional Court of Appeal explicitly confirmed the existence of a revision au fond prohibition, holding that enforcement courts are not authorized to review the substantive content of arbitral awards.

In the case at hand, the enforcement in Türkiye of an arbitral award rendered in favor of a foreign bank as a result of arbitral proceedings conducted under Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic has been sought. The respondent objected to the enforcement, arguing that the signed contract was invalid, and, in any case, had been signed by an unauthorized person, and that the principle of fair trial had been violated during the arbitration proceedings. The court of first instance ruled in favor of enforcement, stating that the respondent had failed to present any concrete evidence regarding the grounds for refusal under the Convention and Article 62 of the Turkish Private International and Procedural Law.

In its appeal, the respondent argued that it was not a party to the contract subject to arbitration, that the arbitration agreement was invalid, that the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted, and that its right to defense had been violated. On these grounds, the respondent further claimed that the award sought to be enforced was contrary to Turkish public policy.

In its assessment, the Regional Court of Appeal held that the dispute arose from a commercial relationship between parties from countries that are signatories to the Convention, and that the conditions for the applicability of the Convention had been met. Accordingly, the Court limited its review to the grounds set forth under the Convention.

In its reasoning, the Regional Court emphasized that, pursuant to Article V of the Convention, enforcement may only be refused on specific grounds enumerated therein, and that a substantive review of the arbitral – i.e., a reassessment of its merits – is not permitted. Since all of the respondent’s objections concerned the substance of the award, the Court held that such objections could not be evaluated within the scope of an enforcement review.

The decision is significant in that it clearly reaffirms that courts conducting an enforcement review in cases involving foreign arbitral awards are not authorized to examine the merits of the award.